(7) New instruments for surveillance and operational control. (8) Methods for control of pollution from combined and storm sewers. (9) A total waste management program in a model community including construction of needed facilities. (10) Methods for water conservation. (13) Methods to prevent boat and ship pollution. The development of new and improved waste treatment techniques would have a tremendous impact on our whole water resource problem. Advanced waste treatment (AWT) techniques could conceivably allow the development of "dry" industries and municipal treatment plants from which absolutely no pollution would enter our surface or ground waters; AWT processes could completely change our present concepts of "adequate" waste treatment and could drastically reduce the otherwise necessary expenditure of multiple billions of dollars for provision of low-flow augmentation (dilution) water to reduce pollution from presently untreatable wastes; AWT could allow continued economic growth and development in water-short areas of this country whose future developable water supplies are presently limited. Water purification and reuse could both postpone the time and reduce the total requirement for providing "new" and expensive fresh water to an area through importation or desalination; in short, a successful AWT technology, by renovating waste waters for deliberate reuse, would simultaneously alleviate two of our major water resource problems: water pollution and water supply. Mr. Chairman, last year I reported to the subcommittee on the status of our program of water purification and reuse. An appendix to this report gives our current estimates for costs of some of the processes under study. I submit that for the record. (The exhibit referred to follows:) APPENDIX At least for the present, new treatment processes are applied to the effluent from well-operated conventional primary-secondary treatment plants. At a later date, it is conceivable that today's conventional processes may be entirely displaced. Alum or lime coagulation-sedimentation may be used to increase suspended solids removal efficiency from the conventionally attainable 90 percent to a 99 percent level and to reduce effluent phosphate concentrations to 1 or 2 mg/1. Coagulation-sedimentation would generally not be considered as an "advanced" process in water treatment and industrial practice. However, it is included here as an "advanced" process because it is not conventionally applied to the treatment of municipal waste effluents and because the efficient removal of suspended and even colloidal solids is a necessary pre-treatment for many of the other "advanced" processes. Assuming a good quality secondary effluent, 50-100 mg/1. of alum or perhaps 200-300 mg/1. of lime are required to remove suspended and colloidal solids and phosphates. Standard water treatment flocculation tanks and sedimentation basins would be used. The capital cost for this type of treatment will be less than $.10/daily gallon capacity for plants of the 10-20 mgd scale and about $.05/daily gallon capacity for 100 mgd plants. Operating costs, including capital amortization at 6 percent interest for 20 years, will be about $.08/1,000 gallons at 10-20 mgd and $.05/1,000 gallons at 100 mgd exclusive of sludge disposal. After removal of colloidal and suspended solids, the soluble refractory organics may be very efficiently removed by contact with activated carbon granules. Such carbon will adsorb up to 20-30 percent of its own weight in mixed organics from waste water when used in countercurrent flow fixed-bed contactors. Using a mass velocity of 7 gal/min-ft3, and a contact time of 40 minutes will remove more than 98 percent of both BOD and total organic matter. To minimize cost. the activated carbon should be regenerated and reused. Fortunately, the thermal regeneration of activated carbon following saturation with actual waste organics has been found possible. A series of 15 successive saturation-regeneration cycles were performed with satisfactory regeneration efficiencies. This process is being studied in a 300,000 gpd pilot plant at Pomona, California, under a joint research project of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. At a scale of 10-20 mgd, the adsorption plant capital costs should be about $.15/daily gallon capacity and at 100 mgd, about $.09/daily gallon. Operating costs, including 20-year capital amortization at 6 percent interest, should be less than $.10/1.000 gallons for a 10-20 mgd plant and about $.06/1.000 gallons at the 100-mgd scale. Except for dissolved inorganic salts added during use, a municipal waste water subjected to the foregoing treatment steps in series will have been restored to a chemical quality generally comparable to that before use. Inorganic salts added during one pass through a municipal system will normally total about 300-400 mg/1. Since many water supplies contain these same dissolved salts at approximately this concentration, one municipal use of water generally doubles the salt content. Fortunately, a single-pass electrodialysis reduces the concentration of dissolved inorganic solids by 40-50 percent, the percentage required to remove the increment of mineral pollutants added during use. Extended bench-scale tests and operating pilot-scale studies at 75,000 gpd have established that the power requirements for this service are only 6-10 kwh/1.000 gallons. For "typical" waste waters, polarization can be avoided if a current density-to-concentration ratio of 750 (mn/cm3)/(g.eq./1.) is not exceeded. Under these conditions, effective cell-pair area requirements are less than 0.004 ft. 2/gpd and concentration ratios greater than 10:1 can be readily achieved with proper pH control; ratios of 50:1 have even been attained. The feed must be carefully pretreated to operate the electrodialysis stacks in this service successfully. With suspended solids removed to avoid plugging and with dissolved organics removed to avoid membrane fouling, electrodialysis of waste water is relatively straightforward although very recent results may indicate some complications from microbiological forms. In tests to date, long-term ion removal has been largely non-selective. The concentration of each ion present is reduced by roughly the same fraction. This is fortunate because generally uniform removal is just what is required to provide water of satis factory quality for most purposes of reuse. One exception exists. Ammonia can be tolerated in municipal water supplies and in many industrial supplies only to a few parts per million. Since typical municipal waste water may contain 20 mg/1. NH+, the removal of 90-95 percent would be required. To achieve this by conventional electrodialysis would be prohibitively costly. The answer appears to be in operating secondary biological treatment under nitrifying conditions so that NH.+ is almost completely converted to NO-. For simple discharge to a stream and when nutrients are a pollution problem, the nitrate levels present may be undesirable, but, for reuse as a municipal supply, the NOconcentration is not of concern in most cases. Capital costs for electrodialysis equipment should be less than $.15/daily gallon capacity at 10-20 mgd and under $.11/daily gallon capacity at 100 mgd. Unless serious unforeseen difficulties are encountered in pilot-scale tests, total operating costs should not exceed $.15/1,000 gallons at 10-20 mgd and should be about $.10/1,000 gallons at 100 mgd. Dr. WEINBERGER. To best illustrate the progress we are making, I would like to perform the following demonstration. I have three samples of water, one of which is drinking water of a community. A second one is the waste water of the community that has undergone treatment using coagulation-sedimentation, carbon adsorption and chlorination. The third represents the community's waste water which has undergone filtration, carbon adsorption, electrodialysis treatment, and chlorination. By visual observation these are not distinguishable. As a matter of fact, by taste, odor, or any other visual or taste method, the source of these is not distinguishable. To indicate the progress we have made I will drink from each one of these and assure the chairman Senator MUSKIE. Would you like someone standing by? Dr. WEINBERGER. We are willing to have as many volunteers as wish to come forward. Mr. Chairman, all of these samples meet Public Health Service drinking water standards insofar as quality is concerned: physical quality, chemical quality, and microbiological quality. I think this is a demonstration to indicate what one is able to do on a pilot plant scale and which will be the ultimate, if you will, in the reuse of water. I thought, with the chairman's permisison, to best illustrate progress I would do this rather than submit a lengthy report. Senator MUSKIE. Now you drank more of the first one. Dr. WEINBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I have a limited hydraulic capacity, and I overestimated the size of the first sample. Mr. Chairman, I might say that these have been marked "A", "B", and "C", and in all truth I do not know which water comes from which source. Dr. Stephan, who is here with me, my deputy, does know from the people in the field which is which, but in terms of being most objective, I do not know which is which. Senator MUSKIE. So, one of these sources, at least, is from a supply of water which has never been involved in pollution? Dr. WEINBERGER. Yes, sir. Senator MUSKIE. Another one is water that has been discharged as industrial and municipal waste and cleaned up? Dr. WEINBERGER. Yes, sir. This represents no dilution at all. This is actually the treated waste water. Senator MUSKIE. This is an illustration of the objective? Dr. WEINBERGER. Yes, sir. I would point out that this is not from a laboratory source. This represents a 75,000 gallon a day pilot plant which is in operation in Lebanon, Ohio. Senator MUSKIE. Is any community in the country meeting this standard of cleanup in its treatment plants? Dr. WEINBERGER. I would say possibly one or two communities are providing-I would say one community. The South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District presently has a treatment plant which, on a design basis, could meet the objectives of perhaps one of these waters, that is the carbon adsorption treated effluent. However, they are not reusing the water. On the other hand, in Los Angeles County, they are renovating waste water for purposes of deliberate reuse. Mr. Chairman, this is their primary purpose in treatment, to increase the available fresh water supply. Senator MUSKIE. For the country as a whole, this is a presently uneconomically obtainable standard? Dr. WEINBERGER. I think we are very close to it being economical, sir. The question of what we mean by economically obtainable is perhaps one of the questions which we have not fully resolved; how much people should pay for waste treatment? 62-611-66- -31 Senator MUSKIE. Of course, it would vary with respect to given industries and given types of pollutants. Dr. WEINBERGER. Yes, sir. I will conclude my statement, Mr. Chairman, by pointing out that pollution must be controlled if we are to continue our national growth, prosperity, and well-being. We are very optimistic that our water pollution problems can be solved. With adequate support, there is no reason why total water pollution control cannot be a reality long before the end of this century. Indeed, major scientific and technical answers can be available within a decade, and, Mr. Chairman, we feel must be available within the decade. Senator MUSKIE. Those last two sentences are very reassuring sentences, I must say. I think it would be useful for the record if you could supply us with a statement spelling out the kind of pollution problems which are now being effectively dealt with or treated and the extent to which there are available answers and the extent to which they are not within the parameters of reasonable economics and cost. Dr. WEINBERGER. We will try to do that, sir. Senator MUSKIE. We would like to have something like this in every year's hearings so that we can see how fast we are moving and where the roadblocks lie. Dr. WEINBERGER. Yes, sir. Senator MUSKIE. We have heard that Dr. Donald F. Hornig, the President's Special Assistant for Science and Technology, has a report on the feasibility of a water purification and reuse plan prepared by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Is there such a report that you can give the committee information on? Dr. WEINBERGER. Yes, sir. Rather briefly, last September, I believe it was during the Northeast drought, we were requested by Dr. Hornig to see if we could come up with a report on the feasibility, as an alternate, of the reuse of waste water for a community such as New York City. We did develop such a report. Dr. Hornig has referred to it. The essence of the report indicated that in addition to the current available treatment, for the additional cost of some 16 cents a thousand gallons-and this was conservatively arrived at; we feel the cost would be even less-one could reuse the waste water to augment potable supply. If you like, I will see that a copy of the report is submitted to you. Senator MUSKIE. How do you and the Office of Saline Water cooperate? Dr. WEINBERGER. During the past few years we have been in repeated contact with the people in the Office of Saline Water. They, as you well know, are developing processes for removing salt from sea water, brackish water, and other mineralized waters. Many of the processes which they are developing do have application in the waste treatment field. When appropriate, we use this technology, and we are currently developing some cooperative projects with them. We will use their equipment in some of the pilot plants that they have built. I would say our cooperation has been good, and it has become even better in the last year or so. Senator. MUSKIE. It should be better under your new organizational structure. Do you expect to increase your research and development by a factor of 5 or 10 in 1 year? Dr. WEINBERGER. Sir, this can be done, if one follows the recommendations of the committee and our own recommendations, that much more of our research should be done through the contract mechanism. We feel we can use this mechanism and the American industry has already been alerted to the need for pollution control. We feel that with the availability of funds an effective research program can be developed with that order of magnitude increase. Senator MUSKIE. There are two questions I would like to ask for Senator Randolph. How does the Rand process using coal figure in the treatment program you have described? Dr. WEINBERGER. I believe the process being referred to is the project that the Rand Corp. of Cleveland, Ohio, has with the Office of Coal Research. The purpose of that project was to find new uses for coal. Based on laboratory work in which we have been in touch with the Office of Coal Research to help evaluate the effectiveness of the process as a pollution control device, this may be an effective way of providing a new type of treatment. At the present time a pilot plant is being built which will evaluate the cost of such a process. At the present time it looks like that particular process, if the economics prove out, sir, would be an alternate to existing types of treatment; in other words, our current primary and secondary treatment. It would not be a process that would end up with this kind of quality (refers to waste water samples exhibited) but it does represent a real interesting approach. We have been working with Coal Research on this, and our people are aware of it, sir. Senator MUSKIE. Are you doing any research on radioactive pollution or treatment of radioactive wastes? Dr. WEINBERGER. Nothing specific at this time concerning the treatment of radioactive waste. The technology for treatment is equally applicable for the radioactive waste as for the nonradioactive equivalents. So, whatever technology we are developing is equally applicable to these types of wastes. Within our own program, sir, we have no research specifically dealing with radioactive wastes. Senator MUSKIE. If I may close by emphasizing, I think implicit in your statement you believe that we must have total pollution control at some point in the relatively near future? Dr. WEINBERGER. Yes, sir. Senator MUSKIE. So that water after treatment under that kind of control would be drinkable, as these samples have been this morning, at least we assume they are drinkable. I would like to see you later in the day. Dr. WEINBERGER. The fact of the matter is, I did sample them yesterday and I feel in good health today. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much. |